Skip to content

Conversation

@jamillambert
Copy link
Collaborator

The rustdocs for the RPCs in types in inconsistent. In particular the sub structs and enums don't always mention which RPC they are part of. This makes it harder to understand which bit goes with which.

Use the same language throughout so that when scanning through the code it is easier to follow.

Make all the rustdocs consistent and mention which RPC they are part of.

The rustodcs for the RPCs in types in inconsistent. In particular the
sub structs and enums don't always mention which RPC they are part of.
This makes it harder to understand which bit go with which.

Make all the rustdocs consistent and mention which RPC they are part of.
Copy link
Member

@tcharding tcharding left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK 9a4e53c

@tcharding
Copy link
Member

Mad. Did you do this manually or were you able to get an LLM to do it?

@tcharding tcharding merged commit 1ef138f into rust-bitcoin:master Sep 9, 2025
30 checks passed
blaze-smith470pm added a commit to blaze-smith470pm/corepc that referenced this pull request Sep 26, 2025
9a4e53c781e0ab2cb4246d3f214a3787325fc33d Improve types struct and enum rustdocs (Jamil Lambert, PhD)

Pull request description:

  The rustdocs for the RPCs in types in inconsistent. In particular the sub structs and enums don't always mention which RPC they are part of. This makes it harder to understand which bit goes with which.

  Use the same language throughout so that when scanning through the code it is easier to follow.

  Make all the rustdocs consistent and mention which RPC they are part of.

ACKs for top commit:
  tcharding:
    ACK 9a4e53c781e0ab2cb4246d3f214a3787325fc33d

Tree-SHA512: 0f497179df047ff488e0edbfb9c2eb936c79e006d98285833d06ee988811fc8585e854880e6271e274d0d099e409986ebf272a618af96f7d41e2670876968afe
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants